Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday June 28, 2010 @02:45PM
from the hopping-on-the-bandwagon dept.

FrankNFurter sends word of an internal Microsoft presentation leaked online today that contains details about Windows 8. The slides mention support for 3-D displays, connectivity upgrades, rapid startup times, and an integrated application store. Quoting Neowin:
"Consumers will be able to search on the web or locally on a Windows 8 machine to access applications from the store. Microsoft also details plans for application developers to help reach millions of users. One of the goals is to ensure licensing and monetization for developers is flexible with a transparent on-boarding process. It's clear that the 'Windows Store' will be a software service Microsoft provides and hosts fully in the cloud. The company will likely build the distribution model on Windows Azure to lure application developers."

Everyone is up-in-arms over the bizarre prediction [slashdot.org] by some third-party developers [arstechnica.com] that Apple will move to an app-store model on OSX (and all the haters pre-condemn them for this "fact" despite Jobs refuting it [macstories.net]), and then it's Microsoft that comes out and proposes to do it.

Question: Since Apple was labelled "the new Microsoft" due to its supposed policies, does this make Microsoft - um - the new Microsoft, again ? [grin]

No. Apple does not refuse to carry apps from developers that have versions for other platforms. And even if they did, it would still be different because Apple is only one player in a competitive market. Don't like Apple's methods, but a Blackberry or an Android and you can still have a huge selection of apps. Apple doing this would be like Dell or Toshiba doing it. If you can't grasp the difference between a monopolist leveraging their monopoly into another market versus a non-monopolist bundling products, well you haven't been paying attention here or you willfully refuse to understand.

All that said, it's pure speculation that MS would make such draconian restrictions upon their application store.

Same thing, entirely different circumstances. Monopoly is not illegal, ABUSE of monopoly is. Appstore = 100% of iApp market, but not anywhere near a monopoly level of the smartphone app market as a whole.
Microsoft censoring competing products in its store = abuse of monopoly, Apple censoring competing products in its store= fair market practice.

Sure, depends on what you mean by a market. The iPhone itself is a minority in the "cell phone" market. It's still (I think) #1 in the "smartphone market", and it's absolutely certainly far and away the #1 (probably to the level of a monopoly some hippies use) in terms of market share for smart phone applications sales via its market.

The point is that on Slashdot Apple's marketshare fluctuates depending on what the context is. If it's Apple being evil with apps, they have a practical monopoly. If it's about Android never catching up to them, then Apple has virtually no marketshare.

That's why we get the "but Apple doesn't have a monopoly" comments. Zealorty on both sides has muddied the information so now it can be bent and twisted to suit any argument.

Uhhh - the monopoly business doesn't bother me so much, as the unfair trade practices. There are many that MS has engaged in, but the single worst thing they ever did, was to demand exclusive contracts with vendors.

Totally wrong. And, it should have been punished severely. Not only Linux, but other OS's would be light years ahead of where they are today, if the vendors had been permitted to build custom and/or "standard" machines with alternative OS's all along.

Even today, it's a bit difficult to navigate Dell's site, to find the machine that you REALLY want, without Windows. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong. All of the possible configurations, and all the possible OS's should be easy to find with a simple search. Very simple search. "No OS Thinkpad" should take me right to the window where I can customize it - I shouldn't have to make multiple searches in the enterprise/business section.

Hmm, you got the same mod apparently for insulting GP and the mods. Didn't even explain why you thought GP was wrong. That does indeed indicate something is wrong with the mods today, buncha stupid-head dummies that they are.

On the upside, it's not really different than what Ubuntu does with software repositories... except that they'll presumably be charging for it. And it would be one way for an administrator to allow people to download software while being reasonably assured they're not going to install malware by accident. I would hope.

As long as Microsoft doesn't block installs from outside the store, I don't see a problem.

On the upside, it's not really different than what Ubuntu does with software repositories... except that they'll presumably be charging for it.

Ubuntu is moving to the same model anyway, with the next version of the package manager supposedly incorporating a commercial app store.

As long as Microsoft doesn't block installs from outside the store, I don't see a problem.

Technically, to be in compliance with the law, MS would have to play on even ground and offer their store as separate download while at the same time publishing the APIs so other apps stores can have the same access to the OS as MS's store. If it comes pre-bundled most people will end up using it and most developers will have to target it, regardless of the quality of the s

The difference here is that you can still install applications from outside the app store on Windows (and Android for that matter), where on iOS you can't. That's why everyone was worried about the next version of OS X moving to a more iOS-focused paradigm; Apple has final cut on everything.

This will give them a defacto stranglehold on the entire Windows software market.

Not if their market is open, similar to the Linux package repository model.

That argument also completely ignores the fact that there are zero restrictions about what software you are allowed to install on Windows. Do you think that Microsoft is going to move to a model where the only way to install software on Windows is through their market?

"Gee Mr Coder, you appear to have a Linux version.... we don't like these kinds of apps in our store."

No problem, I'll just host it on my web site where anyone can download and install it.

"Gee Mr Coder, this appears to be an office suite.. we don't like competitors in our store."

No problem, I'll just host it on my web site where anyone can download and instal

The app store concept is not evil unless traditional distribution is eliminated.

I think it would be very easy for MS to have its cake and eat it too. MS does not need to lock out alternatives because others will do it for them!

MS could make the app store a new choice that expands the distribution of software. Unlike Apple's "i" products, this time the app store would be in addition to traditional distribution, not a replacement. Of course, the apps in the store have undergone some review from a virus/spyware/malware point of view, whereas traditional distribution is what it is. With the app store's new level of safety, users in general (and corporate users in particular) would quickly self-mandate the exclusive use of the app store. Corporate IT would hop on the bandwagon in 5 seconds if it had everything they needed. MS would market this as their best solution to the virus/spyware/malware problem "and of course, it's completely voluntary."

Using a convenient control panel setting, the users (or their helpful sysadmins) could make a unilateral decision to restrict installation of software to the app store. For MS, it's a win across the board: No DOJ investigation, more open than Apple, and for once MS has a way to do something useful about unstable and rogue programs that seem to slip past Windows' limited defenses.

Congrats- you've just proven that you have no idea what you're talking about. The term "monopoly" has an actual definition in economics, and it has nothing to do with control of supply (although that's sufficient to be a monopoly, it's not necessary to be one). A monopoly is any actor with monopoly power- the ability to set the price of a good, rather than having the market do so. If an actor has this power he can set the price above the equilibrium price, decreasing the quantity bought but increasing his own total profits. This creates a market inefficiency called "deadweight loss" as well as reducing consumer surplus in favor of producer surplus, neither of which are good for the economy as a whole.

Microsoft most definitely has a monopoly under that condition- they can set a price higher than equilibrium because there is no true replacement good. That makes them a monopoly.

Microsoft most definitely has a monopoly under that condition- they can set a price higher than equilibrium because there is no true replacement good. That makes them a monopoly.

Except that there are better free alternatives. It's like if there was only one big company selling bottled water for $500 a bottle. Sure, they control the whole "overpriced water" market, but it doesn't matter because you can still go out and by your own water bottle for $5 and then fill it up as many times as you want for free (or nearly free).
Oh wait, that was supposed to be a car analogy wasn't it?:(

The term "monopoly" has an actual definition in economics... Microsoft most definitely has a monopoly under that condition- they can set a price higher than equilibrium because there is no true replacement good. That makes them a monopoly.

Small values of "definition". The relevant definition is a legal one.

Microsoft is a monopoly because that's what a court of law determined, not because of economic definitions, Slashdot "I know it when I see it" definitions, or variations on the Apple-inspired "You tread

Congrats, you've just proven you don't know what you are talking about either. Your description of a monopoly is incorrect by omission. Everything said above is accurate, but you have neglected to mention that a firm is a monopoly only if there are no close substitutes to the good they provide. This is different than not having a "true replacement." As there are clearly a few close substitutes to the operating systems Microsoft sells provided, the operating systems market is probably best defined as an

Most people only "like" Windows because they only just managed to learn how to use it. Having to re-learn everything when they're scared of their computer as it stands is not something that's likely to happen. A lot of windows users I know bitch and moan about viruses and how slow windows becomes but they won't switch because their games and favourite programs run on Windows. Yes there are good alternatives but again there is the whole fear of having to re-learn. That is why MS can charge an arm and a leg f

No, they don't, unless you use the new age hippie definition of "monopoly".

Yeah, it's all those hippie economists and lawyers always smoking the Mary Jane and discussing economic theory while at their beancounter love ins.

You do know you can get a _free_ operating system to run on your computer right? Or you can buy e.g. Apple computers, or computers with all variety of free operating systems.

Please note the extreme cluelessness of Mr. RighSaidFred. I mean seriously, if you're going to go on a rant about competition in the market, of all things, don't you think you should at least know who the buyers in the relevant market are? The people MS is squeezing are OEMs who buy Windows licenses as a component of the computer systems they sell. They are NOT a

If Dell's customers want Linux, they can get Linux. You seem to be implying a lie, namely that Microsoft somehow prevents Dell or other vendors from selling Linux on their machines. In fact this is the most trite of lies: the easily disproved one.

If that's possible now it's ONLY because Microsoft faced legal action of monopoly law. It was true for many years that Dell and the other major PC manufacturers were prevented by Microsoft pricing penalties from shipping PCs with any OS other than Windows. That's a

Yeah, and [unsupported hardware] never happens with Windows, amirite? Oh...wait.

Say you have Doors XIB on your PC. Any device you buy whose box claims compatibility with Doors XIB will either A. use the class driver built into Doors XIB (e.g. USB mass storage, USB video, USB HID) or B. come with a driver for Doors XIB on a disc.

Now the trouble is that too many devices sold in electronics stores claim some version of Windows on the box but not any version of Linux. The disc has installers for Windows XP, Windows Vista/7, and Mac OS X, but not a.deb that I can install into Debian-bas

Everyone is up-in-arms over the bizarre prediction [slashdot.org] by some third-party developers [arstechnica.com] that Apple will move to an app-store model on OSX (and all the haters pre-condemn them for this "fact" despite Jobs refuting it [macstories.net]), and then it's Microsoft that comes out and proposes to do it.

Adding a central repository of applications is no more "The App Store Model" than Ubuntu's central repository of applications.
It's only "The App Store Model" if that becomes the ONLY way of putting applications on your device.

Then rumour mill is pretty dumb. The prospect of removing the facility for arbitrary applications from an OS that has always allowed them is very different from the iOS situation. It wouldn't wouldn't be a rational thing for Apple to try, therefore Apple being a very rational company wouldn't do so. Even Microsoft aren;t dumb enough to do that.

Neither of them need to. The application finding, purchase, installing and updating process is far from perfect on desktop OSs, and varies from app to app. If they pr

I have little doubt that Microsoft wants to embrace the idea of having the final say over everything that gets installed. However, there is absolutely no way they would be allowed to do this. Either by the consumers who'd want to install software that doesn't have their blessing, or by the DOJ looking for funding...I mean monopolies.

The problem with Apple is that we have already seen what their vision of an app store is: A Garden of Pure Ideology.

It doesn't have to be that way. It can merely be apt-get with a fancier interface and a means to pay for stuff.

Microsoft could abuse this idea. However, Apple is already abusing this idea.

This all presumes that Microsoft's latest "leak" isnt vaporware still, all in order to slow migration away from Windows Mobile. It would be far from the first time that MS announced a non-product to slow down any exodus from their products. Heck, a look at the announced (and not included or completed) features for Vista may give you an idea of exactly what this tactic may truly be.

An interrogated app store IS NOT a terrible thing even for a desktop.What would be terrible is if Microsoft made themselves the only app store for windows.

Take a look at Steam. It is really well loved by a lot of users but it is in effect an app store.

Here is the important part.As long as I do not have to use Microsoft's app store I don't have an issue with them having one.As long as I can install what I want from where I want I just don't have a problem with this.Now Walmart, BestBuy and GameStop will be up in arms and the say good buy to the used software market for some stuff but other than that...

Nobody cares if somebody does an app-store. The model people fear is an app-store ONLY method where it's the only way to install programs. This doesn't appear to be that, so why SHOULD we care? The fears regarding Apple and OS X deal with the (very real in my mind) possibility that they could indeed setup an app store and mandate that it be the only source for third party software.

Yet, considering Windows security track record, Windows would benefit the most from Microsoft store as the only way to install applications on Windows, so Microsoft can check all of them if they are malicious (for a small fee of course) before making them available in the store.

I would think the most obvious thing to compare this to would be not Apple's App Store but MS's own XBox Live Marketplace.

I doubt this would be the only way to buy software for a Windows 8 machine, just as buying stuff on Live isn't the only way to get games and stuff for your XBox. (Although obviously MS has some control of the 'buy a game on DVD and stick it in' vector on the XBox as well.)

I wouldn't call this move innovative, but it isn't a terrible idea either. If it's too locked down or not good enou

I have no problem with either Microsoft or Apple creating an app store for their Operating System, so long as they don't then block other methods of software installation, or block competing app stores. The problem with the Apple Store is that it's the only way to install software on your Apple device. So, Apple declining to host an app is the same thing as Apple forbidding the app on all of their devices. Unless Windows 8, or OS 10.? blocks unsigned programs from being installed, then it's just fine by

One of the goals is to ensure licensing and monetization for developers

Considering how badly Microsoft has hampered open standards and locked down their operating system for the sake of "monetizing" software in the past, how bad will it be now that they are, presumably, trying to beat Apple at their own game of a walled-garden app store? And on the desktop no less?

Considering how badly Microsoft has hampered open standards and locked down their operating system for the sake of "monetizing" software in the past, how bad will it be now that they are, presumably, trying to beat Apple at their own game of a walled-garden app store? And on the desktop no less?

Eh. The scenario in which that comparison's valid is really only possible IF this store is the "only" way to put software on a Windows machine. (I quote only because the app store is likewise the only sanctioned wa

it's a lot harder to tell someone who's had a Windows machine for decades, perhaps their whole life, that they now can only buy apps from your store.

Compare it to the upgrade from a Commodore 64 computer to a Super Nintendo Entertainment System. On the C=64, nobody controlled who could publish an app on tape, disk, or cart. But the Super NES used a cryptographic lockout to enforce Nintendo's policy, which was only slightly less restrictive than it was on the NES.

And really? an App store? For WIndows?Cloud Computing? Really? Isn't it here now today?Searching the Web or Locally? (Hmm... I dunno if I have been doing this my whole life)Rapid Startup times? Every OS I have boots in less than 30 seconds.. Last time I booted windows it took 5 mins.

Well, as others have pointed out, they've actually had this since XP I believe. I think one of the Service Packs added the Catalog link. If not, Vista certainly had one, they just weren't aggressive on pushing it.

Truth is, their big headline is only news because of how Apple abuses their phone app store. Otherwise the headline would be "Windows 8 Leak Reveals Nothing of Note".

Rapid Startup times? Every OS I have boots in less than 30 seconds.. Last time I booted windows it took 5 mins.

I know you're exaggerating for effect, but I don't find the boot time of Windows 7 to be any worse or better than anything else. I'm

A MS app store will pretty much be for PCs and maybe XBoxes -- but it'll be because they can't make a decent device for any other market before someone else completely owns that market, not because they're too blind to want to sell on those platforms as well.

As long as I can continue to purchase and download software as normal I couldn't care less about an MS app store.The second they try to lock down Windows so you must use their app store, I'll be gone from the Windows platform and won't look back.

So, whatever. Don't care. If Microsoft decides to shoot themselves in the foot trying to push this, they are easily replaceable.

I agree with this. A Windows app store will help a lot of people, but if I can't install software manually, or by other traditional means, then I'll drop Windows too.
I doubt they are this aloof, but MS might be greatly misreading their customer base if they think that people want a more iphone-like experience on their real computers.

As long as I can continue to purchase and download software as normal I couldn't care less about an MS app store.
The second they try to lock down Windows so you must use their app store, I'll be gone from the Windows platform and won't look back.

So, whatever. Don't care. If Microsoft decides to shoot themselves in the foot trying to push this, they are easily replaceable.

I really don't think MS is that quick to hurt itself, I think what they are looking to do is monetize development on their platform just like Apple does. To develop for the iPhone/Pad you need a Mac and the piece of hardware you want to develop for plus a developer's license, not only that Apple gets a cut of every sale. For Windows all you need is a copy of Windows and MS sees no money after that unless you get their development environment.

Great. The future of PCs is trying to be like the mobile phone industry today. They call it "integration". I call it "service restriction." There's so many artificial barriers like this in IT right now it's seriously impeding our ability to innovate. Why do we need a dozen different platforms, fifty operating systems, and a plethora of incompatible development environments, languages, and libraries underneath that? And don't tell me it's because each fills a "special niche" -- that's only true to a point.

In the hardware world, we have cores -- dedicated chunks of silicon that each perform a specific task. They're licensed out for cheap, or in a growing number of cases, made available for free. I know programmers always have a library of their own code too because the truth is the same problems come up over and over again. But thanks to intellectual property and copyright law, there's virtually no code re-use. Nobody shares. And thanks to all of this, the operating system of 10 years ago could run on a P133 with 64MB of ram now needs 10x that just to boot.

If you'd come to me 10 years ago and said, "Hey, I'm from the future -- and look what we've done!"... I would have said "Fuck this, I'll be a doctor instead." It's complete bullshit the things we do in the name of profit. Think of what our infrastructure and society would look like today if we didn't have cell phones and basic cable sucking $200 or more out of us a month, banks finding new and better ways to fuck us over, debt collection firms getting people thrown in jail, and all this other stuff that basically say "We're fat, stupid, and need more money -- and you're gonna give it to us or else."

What the hell happened to the idea that technology was supposed to make society better?

May I suggest using the [blockquote]... [/blockquote] construct? (Using normal HTML angled brackets, that is.) It makes recognizing what you're quoting (as separate from YOUR message) much easier for a reader. Slashcode automatically indents it and changes text color to a lighter grey.

You complain about having so many different platforms, but this is helpful in one regard - avoiding a homogenous system, which leads to more trouble in the event of compromise.

If you want to avoid duplication of efforts, it's pretty obvious at this point you want a core html5 app and then perhaps custom IPhone or Android specific applications as well. Then you can still have the system security of a number of platforms but lower development costs.

The future of PCs is trying to be like the mobile phone industry today.

More like the last 25 years (since Windows 1.0) is trying to be like the mobile phone industry today. I see this "Windows Store" as one more step toward MS' goal of software as a service. How cynical is it to think that these virtual shelves will be stocked with:

What the hell happened to the idea that technology was supposed to make society better?

People.

People replaced "... makes society better" with "... makes company more profitable". I was going to say capitalism instead of people, but this would also happen in any other economic and political model. We've demonstrated again and again that we're just a bunch of egoistic little chimps, who at best have the well-being of their tribe at heart.

See that's what's great about Microsoft. There so damn timely. I mean search engines come out and BAM! It only took them like nearly 10 years to come up with one.

Microsoft is always following with the intention of thinking they can do it better. They never do. The one thing they did do better was market. That's why Windows became the default OS for nearly everything. Now they're losing that battle. This app store should be cool when it comes online in what, 2014?

Just wait for all linux-based distros to come pre-installed with an Android execution environment. Canonical is already working on it and might already be present in 10.10A platform and framework for smartphones, TVs, tablets, now linux distros. I guess you could even port it to OSX and windows. Thousands of apps suddenly available everywhere! =D

The problem with current software installed through "repositories" is that apps don't follow a common API - instead every app is allowed to have a dependency to X l

The software center in the latest Ubuntu is a joy to use. If I only marked certain apps as "best of breed", it would be perfect. And the price on all those apps, $0. Seriously. If my mic volume worked, I'd never boot windows again. (My Mic works, but it is too low, even when cranked to 100%.)

I think going forward, most OS's are going to have an App Store built in. It's simply to convenient and brings to many advantages to the average user. It's also almost certain to be abused to reduce consumer choice and make the application market less competitive. So rather than complaining about it, I propose we modify the app store so we get all the benefits and none of the drawbacks.

A central "store" app for downloading, buying, upgrading, and registering software does not really exist on any desktop today. Some handle noncommercial downloading, some handle nothing, some handle commercial titles only. The real hurdle is in getting some of the benefits (like vetted software and remote disable of malware) without getting the drawbacks (like a single gatekeeper and fewer choices due to artificial restriction). We can't trust any single vendor and we shouldn't have to. Rather we need a model where one app can manage multiple repositories, all with signed software, updates, and the ability to transfer payments for registration purposes. Then we need a separate component that vets the apps, verifies the sources and ACLs, and lets the user know how much they can trust the app. This info can come from multiple parties and be weighted to give an overall trust rating the OS can use to apply default security restrictions automatically. The multiple parties might be the OS vendor, a security company, and an open project akin to ClamAV and together they build a greylist for your apps.

The benefit here is competition and better quality as a result. If MS is deciding all by themselves what software is trustworthy, they have little motivation to fix problems in a timely fashion or work hard at it. If, however, three or four parties are offering a for pay service, they're all competing for your money and are directly motivated to do the best job possible, resulting in fewer mistakes and better data for end users.

Why? It's a standard industry model. Antitrust laws are not intended to hamper the use of business models used by others in the industry, it's to prevent someone from applying pressures _only they_ can use to push their monopoly further or into other markets. Anyone can (and has) opened an app market, so _everyone_ can.

Well, much like it's leveraging their OS dominance by having Internet Explorer pre-installed, having their app-store pre-installed would also be a huge advantage over other app stores. So, I expect that at least in the EU, MS would be force to not install their app store by default, though there's nothing wrong with them putting it on their website. I think technically they should be required to do the same thing in North America, but who knows if they would be.

As opposed to what may happen on the Macs, where they convert OSX to IOS, and the ONLY way to get an app is to buy it off the App store.

You mean except for the fact that they have absolutely no plans to do so and when Steve Jobs was queried about an app store for the Mac he said no? Yes, except for no evidence that they will do this and the CEO saying the won't, it certainly may happen.